29 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

but why .... please do not tell me that they are intending to sell their streaming rights a la the AFL overseas listening app.

Nobody can be sure what the ABC is doing at board level right now, the Tunein App should allow you to hear Local ABC Radio

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Nobody can be sure what the ABC is doing at board level right now, the Tunein App should allow you to hear Local ABC Radio

Thanks SWYL ... I downloaded one from a third party that got me onto 774 but I also like my News radio occasionally so I will try Tunein

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

Thanks SWYL ... I downloaded one from a third party that got me onto 774 but I also like my News radio occasionally so I will try Tunein

Tunein is pretty good. The only thing you won’t pick up is Live Sport. But for normal programmes Tunein will pick up anything as long as you have good wifi

 

6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

That is the total number of foxtel subscribers .... the number who sign up because of the AFL package would be far fewer.

Total membership of all clubs is a tad under 1 million but that is often 2-3 persons per household. My figure of 1 million is reasonable but even at say 1.5 million the amounts are around the same. Remember under the internet package you are getting nothing but the AFL.... no movies.. no Game of Thrones etc etc

As to advertising who would pay for a service with ads especially a lot of ads. Foxtel advertising revenue would not be that great. In many cases it's just promos for other shows. I agree banner advertising might get you a few dollars

You're probably right about the AFL signups. Unfortunately we have no figures to work with and we're forced to make assumptions.

I'm also coming from the assumption that the AFL package is the only worthwhile thing on Foxtel's offering - which is true for me but unlikely to be true for lots of other people. There's just so much garbage on Foxtel, I don't see the point and frankly I resent being forced to pay for content I don't need.

If there's some crap on Netflix, I don't really care at $18 per month. I'm getting value. There is no value in Foxtel for me because the only content I want is so limited. This is what I feel is unfair.

Actually I've just gone to Foxtel's website for the first time in ages, they have some special for 12 months at $39 per month. Starting to get reasonable. Rough maths says $40 per month, 4 MFC games a month, $10 per game. I think I can handle that.

I've got some examining to do now.

The issue is really - Does the AFL really need to extract 400+ million a year from it's Football supporters every year, just to run a footy comp?

 

Edited February 27, 20187 yr by PaulRB

It looks like the Demon Replay Archive on bigfooty is setting up to replay games again this year. I used it last year with great success and the archive goes back years and years.

I use Apple TV to show games on my large TV.

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

The issue is really - Does the AFL really need to extract 400+ million a year from it's Football supporters every year, just to run a footy comp?

 

Does the AFL really need to employ 100’s of people that sit in a building all day?

i support the MFC. I don’t give a rats ass about the AFL 

The game i grew up loving is now almost unrecognizable. It’s still cool, but i do miss one one one battles, High marking duels and Full Forwards who kicked bags of goals weekly

The interchange rotations have taken all that away. 

Does Gill deserve a $2mill salary?

I think we would all survive without it. 

Edited February 27, 20187 yr by Sir Why You Little

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

The issue is really - Does the AFL really need to extract 400+ million a year from it's Football supporters every year, just to run a footy comp?

 

Now that is a nice debating point and deserves a considered response.

Cricket is facing such a question in a round about way with the Big bash. Should it keep it on Channel 10 where it rates well and the kids love it etc or should it give it to foxtel or even worse Optus for more dollars.

Cricket in the UK (including test cricket) has been behind a paywall for around 10 years after cricket lobbied to be taken off the UK anti siphoning list.

11 hours ago, Flying Cloud said:

For the last several years I have been able to watch replays of all matches on the Telstra T-box 24 hours after the game.

Telstra have just announced changes to the T-box and it appears the only way to guarantee to see all Demons games this year on a TV is through Foxtel. Have I got this wrong, please someone tell me there are other options rather forking out even more money again.

I sent you a PM

9 hours ago, skills32 said:

I sent you a PM

I am in the sameboat 

The tbox was a great system and easy to use

Now on foxtel,poor quality, definition and complicated aceess and search

Why are we lumbered with this 2 bit old school technology Ohh and btw  never seen so much crap trotted out as entertainment on the othe foxtel channels

At last count tbere were 647000 t box customers to be forced over to Foxtel 

They are hell bent on extracting every last cent out of a moribund and outdated business model

 

Being interstate, I gladly pay $5.00 for the web replays so I can watch the game a few times over. If I was in Melbourne, I’d be paying to see it live, so not a bad deal. Unfortunately, the 24 hour delay sucks, but it’s better than nothing!

1 hour ago, DeezNuts said:

Being interstate, I gladly pay $5.00 for the web replays so I can watch the game a few times over. If I was in Melbourne, I’d be paying to see it live, so not a bad deal. Unfortunately, the 24 hour delay sucks, but it’s better than nothing!

Tell us more - multi-views of the games? All for $5 each? Games you select or the whole season? ie: One does not wish to watch the Carlton, Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, GWS or Suns games, necessarily but in particular, not have to pay for these games if these are not going to be watched. 

I was on Foxplay through the Xbox last year and have taken up Fox Now for this season. Does anyone know if the Blackout still exists for this year? We were subjected to it twice last year that I know of.

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Tell us more - multi-views of the games? All for $5 each? Games you select or the whole season? ie: One does not wish to watch the Carlton, Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, GWS or Suns games, necessarily but in particular, not have to pay for these games if these are not going to be watched. 

So if you register with Telstra from the AFL website, you pay only $5 or so a week/month (can’t remember the frequency) and you can watch every game, and more importantly dees games, as often as you like!

but as I understand it Deemania, you have Foxtel so you’re sorted!

Edited February 28, 20187 yr by DeezNuts

On 27/02/2018 at 1:48 PM, daisycutter said:

not sure what your point is here

we all know that certain companies pay big money for the rights

we know they are in the business to make profits

but they have plenty of options......which greatly affect us mug punters

do they charge a thousand people $418,000 , a million people $418,  2 million people $230 or 3 million people $100....etc etc

do they sell packages i.e. all teams, all games all replays or something less like just your team....etc etc

and then there is all the advertising $s accruing as a result of the rights where the model with most subscribers delivers the most advertising $s

so just saying they are a business who bought the rights and can do what they like is just too simplistic

they can certainly get away with a lot just because they are a monopoly

In the very early days games were broadcast live, at least the last quarter. Grand finals inc. 57 58 and 59 were also broadcast live but went straight to air and were not preserved. I can still (barely) remember the cameras set up behind the goals and filming down the ground. About 1960 the vfl stopped live telecasts because they felt it damaged the gate.

10 hours ago, bush demon said:

In the very early days games were broadcast live, at least the last quarter. Grand finals inc. 57 58 and 59 were also broadcast live but went straight to air and were not preserved. I can still (barely) remember the cameras set up behind the goals and filming down the ground. About 1960 the vfl stopped live telecasts because they felt it damaged the gate.

Remember the policy of no TV unless the GF was a sell out.

One year Channel 7 had to buy a swag of tickets so it could show the game.

If you think about it the VFA were the ones who blazed the trail with their FTA live matches every Sunday.

Fascinating to try and predict the future of sports broadcasting.

Ten years ago would we have imagined that Netflix would have the reach that it has today. Perhaps there will be a Netflix that emerges in the Sports market ie.one company..... all the sport you can watch for $20 a month.

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Remember the policy of no TV unless the GF was a sell out.

One year Channel 7 had to buy a swag of tickets so it could show the game.

If you think about it the VFA were the ones who blazed the trail with their FTA live matches every Sunday.

Fascinating to try and predict the future of sports broadcasting.

Ten years ago would we have imagined that Netflix would have the reach that it has today. Perhaps there will be a Netflix that emerges in the Sports market ie.one company..... all the sport you can watch for $20 a month.

The Netflx model depends on having subscribers numbered in the many millions. According to this site Netflix had,  in the fourth quarter of 2017 $117.58 million streaming subscribers worldwide. And i don't think they're making a profit yet, in large part becasue of the billions they are spending on developing their own content. The gamble is that they eventually they will have, say 300 million subscribers.

I guess a sports streaming site could replicate that but are they going to pay rights for AFL in a global market?

On progress i was amazed to learn Netflix started of as a mail order DVD company

53 minutes ago, binman said:

The Netflx model depends on having subscribers numbered in the many millions. According to this site Netflix had,  in the fourth quarter of 2017 $117.58 million streaming subscribers worldwide. And i don't think they're making a profit yet, in large part becasue of the billions they are spending on developing their own content. The gamble is that they eventually they will have, say 300 million subscribers.

I guess a sports streaming site could replicate that but are they going to pay rights for AFL in a global market?

On progress i was amazed to learn Netflix started of as a mail order DVD company

I had that thought as well and you are probably right.

Of course if they are big enough and the traditional cable TV (ie local providers) fall away the monolith becomes a "price maker" rather than a price taker and the AFL will have to take a much reduced price to get onto the system.

More likely that the sports will get into direct marketing and the monolith will never get off the ground but who knows.

On 27/02/2018 at 10:25 AM, Flying Cloud said:

Yes, but doesn't Live Pass only show on a laptop or tablet and not on the a TV. I do have Google Chrome, but I understand this doesn't work with Live Pass.

If you have a VPN you could sign up to the international WatchAFL pass and hook it up to your tv through your laptop. However for the price it's probably cheaper to get Foxtel for the footy season- theyve got a deal $39 for SportsHD pack for 3 months

On 27/02/2018 at 12:24 PM, sue said:

The problem is you can make that argument for anything the AFL or foxtel etc choose to do.  Doesn't make it right.  There is no competition  so we have no way of knowing what is reasonable and what is exploitation.  Seems  to me that the interests of Foxtel are being put above that of the humble AFL fan.

I don't like it but that's the price of a $2.5b deal. 

On 27/02/2018 at 2:02 PM, Choke said:

I would happily pay a small fee, on par with what the AFL app charges, to be able to watch Melbourne games live on my TV.

But TV rights are apparently different to streaming rights, even though in my home there is no difference between an internet streaming device and my TV.

My TV is an internet enabled device and should be treated as such by the relevant stakeholders. I do not watch free to air and will not pay extortionate 'package' rates to foxtel for content I will not watch to view 2 hours a week of content I do watch (1 Melbourne game per week).

They're forcing an out-dated business model down the public's throat and frankly it makes me angry. I am a 32 year old male white collar worker with a family. I sit in a highly valued demographic for advertisers because of my disposable income and age. Their advertisers can't reach me because they're using this idiotic agreement that says internet streaming should be restricted to a 7 inch diagonal screen. In my house all screens are streaming devices.

I am literally sitting here saying I am willing to pay for the AFL's content. Real dollars. Right now. But I want to watch it in HD on my TV screen, not on my piddly little tablet/phone.

Let's have a little perspective here AFL. I pay $18 per month for a Netlix subscription, which provides 4 family members with countless hours of entertainment every week. Lets say, conservatively, 1 hour per day per person. 28 hours of TV per week for $18 a month.

All I'm asking is 2 hours a week, for 1 person (1 MFC game per week). I'd even pay the same rate as I pay Netflix - $18 per month.

The only way I can get this content is to pay Foxtel $50 a month. For one screen. For 2 hours a week, for content 1 person in the family will watch and a whole lot of crud mixed in. Or I can pay Telstra $100 ($12.50 per month for an 8 month season) to watch it on my goddamn phone.

These are not options. These are carefully curated business practices designed to make me pay more (Foxtel) for less (2 hours a week).

How much would you be willing to pay? 

Alsoremember splitting the rights by club would be bad for smaller clubs like ours. The likes of Collingwood would love to be able to sell off the rights to their games individually would create a greater divide between the haves and have nots.

On 27/02/2018 at 4:05 PM, BigFez said:

The idea of being able to purchase just your teams' matches as a package, or even being able to purchase single matches as a pay per view arrangement would be gold.  I would gladly be extorted for that.

Our club would suffer immensely under that model.

On 27/02/2018 at 4:53 PM, PaulRB said:

The issue is really - Does the AFL really need to extract 400+ million a year from it's Football supporters every year, just to run a footy comp?

 

It's a professional sport. I don't mean to sound harsh but if you don't like it there are amateur/semi-pro leagues you can follow. But you won't get anywhere near the tv coverage.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Our club would suffer immensely under that model.

Not necessarily

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not necessarily

How many people are going to pay for MFC games vs Pies, Bombers, Hawks, WCE, crows etc Those clubs will use that as further ammo to say they should get a larger slice of the revenue pie and the weak-kneed and conflicted Commission and CEO would buckle instantly.